Author
Topic: Barovier and Toso Eugeneo/-io/-ia? (Read 1659 times)

The vase in the photos resembles a draped body (to my eye). It contains 'gold' leaf sandwiched in layers of clear glass and has black trim for the lip and base, and also around the inside margins of the shaped handles. It is 14.5cm high by 10.5cm wide by 7.5cm deep.

John Hobbs, 'glassobsessed' on this board, has indicated in a private message that this item is in the 'Eugenio' range by Barovier and Toso. That's delightful, because I've found similar but larger items in that range on offer on an auction site for $5000 here and exactly the same shape and size but in a different colour scheme for 450 euros ($630) here. But profit is not my concern.

My question is the exact spelling of the range. Those two auction sites use 'Eugenio' and 'Eugeneo', respectively.

Lesley Jackson in 20th Century Factory Glass plumps for 'Eugeneo' as the spelling, giving a description on page 27 but no photos. On the other hand Leslie Pina is most variable. In her book Circa 50s Glass she has a 'Eugeneo' handled vase or jug on page 25 and a 'Eugenio' handled bowl or jug on page 30. (There is also an unnamed pitcher with the same handle shape on page 29, and the design of 'Eugeneo' in 1951 is reported in Appendix B.) However in her earlier book Fifties Glass, Leslie Pina refers to some 'Eugenia' table lamps on page 86. The common features seem to be the characteristically shaped handles and embedded metal particles.

Are there different ranges Eugeneo, Eugenio and Eugenia? If not, which is the correct spelling? I presume that one of those recent books on the Barovier family will be definitive.

Marina Barovier's book has it spelled Eugeneo. I don't know if that makes it more right than any other spelling. Often words in other languages are given in more than one way.

What a lovely vase. Eugeneo is made by added color to the glass, but not fusing. All eugeneo I have seen is opaque. So your vase is not eugeneo. The shape is a form that is made during the same period as eugeneo (early 1950s). My personal taste is that I like your vase better than most of the eugeneo pieces I've seen. Many eugeneo pieces have shapes similar to your vessel, so it is easy to understand why someone would guess it might be.

I agree with Anita that the piece isn't Eugeneo. I would say that that's the intended spelling as it comes from the book that is a history of the Barovier factory, by someone who is part of the family. I think Anita is being polite when she doesn't add that Pina's spellings are variable and occasionally inaccurate, especially the Fifties book.

The shape of Brewster's vase is very much Barovier, as is the use of gold foil. However, Eugeneo is an even more typical Barovier technique, which they used from the 30's onwards. In Italian the technique is called "conversazione a caldo senza fusione" (colouring while hot without melting). The pieces to be added to the glass which gives it its texture or colour are picked up from the marver and rolled into the gather. The pieces either are not fusible or the glass onto which they are added is at a temperature which won't melt the pieces. Come to think of it, that could also describe the process by which gold foil is picked up on the marver as it isn't fusible either.

It's interesting that the piece Svazzo has for sale is the same shape as the Eugenio piece pictured on page 152 of the Barovier book. Svazzo doesn't call it Eugeneo, although he knows it was made by Barovier and Toso. That's significant to me. The other slightly significant difference between Brewster's piece and Eugeneo is a small difference in the base. The five examples of Eugeneo in the Barovier book all have applied black bases, but they are crimped. That is, it looks as if the blower has put about six vertical indentation around the base.

It's quite common fro Murano companies to use the same shape and yet use different techniques in various examples. So while you may not have a Eugeneo piece, you still have a wonderful B & T piece from the same era.

Thanks David i am so glad i renewed the interest in this thread Brewsters item is the one we are talking about not mine and is so similar to the one i sold thru Xxxxxxxx Auction House Bond Street back in the 1990s it was white with orange edging . If i can find a picture after all this time i will send it to you , its not the first time an Auction House has got things wrong . i have held back the name of the Auction house for obvious reasons . seems like you have done your homework , whatever!!! Trevors item is a very nice piece of Barovier &Toso but we still dont have an answer to what this technique is called . cheers and a Happy new year jp

Now I am confused. I understand that the Marina Barovier book uses Eugeneo, which also seems to be the dominant spelling elsewhere, at least among careful writers.

The listing by Svazzo of the $5000 item mentioned in my first link above has the heading "RARE Murano ERCOLE BAROVIER Gold Flecks EUGENIO Vase". David, did you miss that or are you suggesting the seller is spelling it Eugenio because he knows it is not Eugeneo? Or was the spelling Eugenio used officially for a product that is somewhat similar to Eugeneo, but not the same thing? (I assume the spelling Eugenio in your third paragraph is a slip of the keyboard.)

By combining Anita's advice with David's, I conclude that Eugeneo refers to a treatment for picking up colour in the form of non-fusible materials such as metal particles, not to anything about the shape of the piece itself. Anita says the resultant object will (usually?) be opaque, while David allows that gold foil (as in my specimen) would qualify. However, they agree that my specimen is not Eugeneo. Can that be clarified, please?

Sorry, Brewster. I missed the "Eugenio" in the title of Svazzo's piece, as I went straight to the body of the ad. And it is a typo in my third paragraph. I'm still useless on a keyboard.

To clarify what I meant about the gold foil. I think using gold foil creates quite a different effect than is obtained in Eugeneo, and yet how gold foil is used isn't that far from conforming to the technical description of Eugeneo. The point I was trying to make is that the technical description might help us understand how a piece was made, but for an accurate identification it's necessary to see verified examples of the technique. And by verified examples, I mean reference books, or reputable auction catalogues, Dr. Fischer's or Sotheby's, for example. Your piece might share the shape of a Eugeneo vase, but it doesn't use that technique. I do believe, however, that it is by Barovier and Toso.

As Barovier and Toso are still active, it should be possible to email them a photo and ask their opinion.

I've heard of the phrase Ca d'oro used for glass that has gold alone in it. I don't know if it is a correct term, since I learned about it on another glass message board. I have a feeling that coloring without fusion has more to do with introducing a pigmented compound, but not heating enough to confuse it completely, as David wrote. I don't consider gold, silver, or aventurine when I think of this technique, though some pigments used do look very metallic to me. For example, the gemmata pieces that B&T made look metallic to me.

I better stop talking technique, though. I always get in trouble when I do. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. One day I promise myself I will learn more about the technical things.